Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak Verma on 20 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MM (MAHILA COURT02)
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: NEHA, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Deepak Verma
FIR No. 941/15
PS : Dwarka South
U/s 354D/509 IPC
Date of Institution : 21.04.2016
Date of reserving of order : 18.01.2018
Date of Judgment : 20.01.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 427697/16
2. Name of the Complainant : A.B.
3. Date of complaint : 09.12.2015
4. Name of accused person : Deepak Verma
S/o Sh. Gyan Chand
R/o H.No. A99/B, Palam
Extension, New Delhi
5. Offence charged : Under Section
354D/509 IPC.
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
Counsels for the parties.
Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. A.K. Thakur and Ms. Sujata Rai, Ld. Counsels for the accused.
FIR No. 941/15 State Vs Deepak Verma Page No. 1 of 9 PS Dwarka South BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused has been charged for committing offences punishable under Section 354D/509, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 09.12.2015 at 6 PM and any date before that near Feel Like Home A Block, Palam Extension, accused Deepak Verma stalked complainant A by following her and attempting to foster personal interaction despite earlier indication of disinterest by her. He also insulted the modesty of complainant by using filthy language against the complainant.
2. Complaint was made and an FIR was registered. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet has been filed for offences punishable under Section354D/509/506 IPC.
3. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused was summoned to face trial. The copy of the chargesheet was supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to the accused.
4. Vide order dated 29.09.2016, charge for offences u/s 354D/509 IPC was framed against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 941/15 State Vs Deepak Verma Page No. 2 of 9 PS Dwarka South
5. Prosecution Witnesses have been summoned for evidence and total 4 prosecutions witnesses have been examined to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused.
6. PW1 SI Hari Singh is the IO of the case who conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet. He proved the statement of complainant as Ex. PW1/A, rukka as Ex. PW1/B, site plan as Ex. PW1/C, arrest memo as Ex. PW1/D, personal search memo as Ex. PW1/E and disclosure statement as Ex. PW1/F. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C has been proved as Ex. PW1/G and the application to get a copy of the same as Ex. PW1/H.
7. PW2 Sh. Balamir Singh is an eye witness to the incident. He has deposed that his wife runs PG for girls. On the date of incident, accused came outside of their building where they run PG for girls and started shouting loudly and on hearing this, he came to his balcony. He heard that accused was taking name of the complainant and accused was asking for phone number of his friend from the complainant. Accused was also abusing the girl in filthy language. On seeing and hearing this, he came to the spot from where the accused was shouting and he found that accused was drunk. He told him not to shout loudly and stop abusing the complainant but accused continued abusing the complainant. The accused told him that he was demanding the mobile number of the friend of the complainant as her friend had taken loan on his identity. Thereafter, he called the complainant down FIR No. 941/15 State Vs Deepak Verma Page No. 3 of 9 PS Dwarka South stairs. She told him that she has no information about any kind of loan. The accused was continuing shouting and asking for the mobile number of the complainant's friend. Some scuffled took place between accused and the complainant. PCR was called.
8. PW3 ASI Rajinder Singh is the duty officer who registered the present FIR. The FIR is Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on rukka is Ex. PW3/B.
9. PW4 Smt. Iqbal Kaur is also alleged to be an eye witness of the incident. She has deposed that on that day, at about 08:30 pm, when she came out in her balcony, she found that Deepak and complainant A were on the road and they were quarreling with each other. She came down and saw that both were there and PCR had come at the spot. The complainant was living on rent in one room of her flat. The police had made inquiry from her.
10. All the witnesses were cross examined. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 09.01.2018. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. Substance of incriminating evidence was put to him separately. Accused denied all the incriminating evidence and has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant because her boyfriend had taken loan at his address and he did not repay the loan and vacated his property. The loan people were coming at his address and asking FIR No. 941/15 State Vs Deepak Verma Page No. 4 of 9 PS Dwarka South about the whereabouts of the boyfriend of complainant. He had gone on that day to ask for the mobile number of the boyfriend of complainant but she did not give it to him and over this quarrel took place between them. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. Therefore, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
11. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused. The prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 354D/509 IPC and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
12. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There is nothing on record to prove that accused stalked the complainant or abused her. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused was involved in the alleged incident. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
13. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
14. In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to FIR No. 941/15 State Vs Deepak Verma Page No. 5 of 9 PS Dwarka South prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to put his defence.
15. The accused has been charged with offence punishable under section 354D IPC. The prosecution has alleged that the accused used to stalk the complainant and attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by her.
16. The complainant has not entered the witness box to prove the alleged incident or the incidents of stalking. The prosecution has also examined two eye witness namely Sh. Balamir Singh and Smt. Iqbal Kaur. Perusal of the testimony of the two public witnesses would show that they have not deposed anything about stalking of complainant by the accused. They have also not deposed that they have seen the accused near the building of the complainant on any day apart from the day of incident. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring any material to prove that accused used to stalk her or attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by her.
17. The accused has also been charged with offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. It is alleged that accused, intending to insult the modesty of complainant, uttered obscene words or made obscene gestures, intending that such word or gesture shall be seen by FIR No. 941/15 State Vs Deepak Verma Page No. 6 of 9 PS Dwarka South the complainant.
18. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW2 Balamir Singh and PW4 Smt. Iqbal Kaur. PW2 and PW4 are alleged to be eyewitnesses of the incident.
19. PW2 Balamir Singh has deposed that accused had come outside his building and started shouting loudly. He heard that accused was taking name of the complainant and was asking for a phone number of friend from the complainant. He was abusing the complainant in filthy language. When he came downstairs and asked the accused to stop, accused kept continuously abusing the complainant. When complainant came down, accused again asked for the mobile number. The accused informed him that he was demanding the mobile number of a friend of the complainant as her friend had taken a loan on his identity. Some scuffle took place between the complainant and accused as she did not give the mobile number of her friend.
20. In the cross examination, PW2 Balamir Singh has admitted that in his presence, the accused had asked for the number of the boyfriend of the complainant. He has voluntarily stated that it was in little abusive language. He has further admitted that the accused did not abuse the complainant. He has further voluntarily stated that the accused was only talking in loud voice. He has also admitted that FIR No. 941/15 State Vs Deepak Verma Page No. 7 of 9 PS Dwarka South accused started talking in loud voice when the complainant said that she did not have the number of her boyfriend.
21. It is clear from the statement of PW2 Balamir Singh that accused was only talking in loud voice while asking for the mobile number of the friend of the complainant. Nothing has come in statement of PW2 Balamir to prove that accused uttered any obscene word or made any obscene gesture.
22. PW4 Smt. Iqbal Kaur has deposed that when she came in the balcony, she found that accused and complainant were quarreling with each other. When she went downstairs, she found that PCR had come and she had gone to the police station with the complainant.
23. In crossexamination, the witness has stated that she was not aware of the incident and she had seen incident the quarrel was already over. She has also stated that the incident had not taken place in her presence.
24. Nothing has come in the evidence of PW4 Smt. Iqbal Kaur also to prove that accused uttered any obscene word or made any obscene gesture in her presence.
25. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused uttered any FIR No. 941/15 State Vs Deepak Verma Page No. 8 of 9 PS Dwarka South obscene word or made any obscene gesture towards the complainant to insult the modesty of the complainant or he used abusive language for the complainant.
26. In view of aforesaid discussion, this holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 354D and 509 IPC. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted of the charges alleged.
27. Accused has already furnished his bail bond and surety bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C which has been considered and accepted.
Pronounced in the open court (NEHA)
on 20th January 2018 Metropolitan Magistrate
Mahila Court02/Dwarka
New Delhi
Digitally
signed by
NEHA
NEHA Date:
2018.01.20
16:54:59
+0530
FIR No. 941/15 State Vs Deepak Verma Page No. 9 of 9
PS Dwarka South